Allowed

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC22 Nov 2012WP/30769/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed three writ petitions against assessment orders for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. Key grounds included the statutory bar of limitation and lack of competent authority. While limitation barriers were found for partial periods, fresh assessments were permitted for remaining periods upon compliance with procedural requirements.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were allowed on grounds of limitation, lack of competent authority, and non-furnishing of report. Fresh assessment allowed for competent officer.

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, Vs Commercial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE

¶4

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 30744, 30769 and 30781 of 2012

¶6

COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶7

Heard Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Venkatadri, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, China Waltair Circle, Visakhapatnam.

¶8

The Writ Petitions are filed by the same petitionerM/s Coastal Greenbelt Developers, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam. Orders of assessment passed by the respondent under the provisions of A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are assailed in Writ Petition Nos.30769, 30781 and 30744 of 2012, respectively. The challenge to assessment orders are on a plurality of grounds but principally on the grounds: - (a) that the respondent was not authorized to pass the orders of assessment as required under Rule 59 of the A.P.VAT Rules, 2005. Reliance is placed for this challenge on the decision of this Court in Balaji Flour Mills V. C.T.O.^[1] ; (b) the orders of assessment are barred by limitation under Section 21(5) of the Act; and (c) though the orders of assessment are based on reports of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Visakhapatnam, copies of the said report pertaining to

¶9

the assessment years in question have not been furnished to the petitioner affording it a reasonable opportunity to respond to the contents thereof.

¶10

It is fairly conceded by the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax on instructions that the order of assessment dated22.08.2012 in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 in toto and the order of the assessment upto July 2006 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 cannot be sustained in view of the bar of limitation set out in Section 21(5) of the Act. Learned Special Government Pleader also concedes the position on instructions that the respondent was not duly authorized to pass any of the orders of assessment and that a duly authorized and competent assessing officer would furnish copies of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report on the basis of which the petitioner is sought to be assessed for the periods for which the assessment would be within limitation.

¶11

In the light of the allegations asserted on behalf of the petitioner, considered in the light of the factual and legal position fairly conceded on behalf of the respondent-Revenue, Writ Petition No.30769 of 2012 (which is against the order of assessment passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2005-06) is allowed on all the three grounds, namely bar of limitation; incompetence of the respondent in passing the order of assessment, in the light of the decision of this Court in Balaji Flour Mills case (supra); and as no copy of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report, on the basis of which the assessment proceeded, was furnished to the petitioner.

¶12

Writ Petition No.30781 of 2012 is also allowed on the ground of incompetence of the respondent in passing the order of assessment and non-furnishing of the copy of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report and the order to the extent it pertains to the period 1^st April 2006 to 31.07.2006 is barred by limitation. In the circumstances however, a duly competent and authorized assessing officer may proceed to pass a fresh order of assessment for the period subsequent to July 2006 after following the due process of law and furnishing a copy of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report on the basis of which the petitioner is sought to be assessed.

¶13

Insofar as Writ Petition No.30744 of 2012 is concerned, the same is allowed on the ground of the respondent’s incompetence to pass the order of assessment and for failing to furnish copy of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report. A competent and duly authorized assessing officer may however pass a fresh order of assessment for the period 2007-08 after furnishing the petitioner a copy of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department’s report and after following the due process of law.

¶14

The Writ Petitions are allowed as above stated; but in the circumstances without costs.

¶15

________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶16

____________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO 22^nd November 2012 DR

¶17

[1] 40 VST 150

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M\S.Itc.Lt Iltd Division Gutnur Vs S.A.P Its S.R. S.T.A.T Hyd

M/S.National Mineral Dev.Cor.Ltd Vs Stat Hyderabad

The sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Vs M/S.K.S.Subbaiah Pillai and Company

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Coastal Greenbelt Developers, Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation